Could
it be argued that Fine Art ought to be assigned more ‘value’ than more popular forms
of Visual Communication?
‘You
could make a mathematical formula having to do with a work’s size, quality,
desirability and so on, but all of these are secondary to the crucial factor,
which is the level of reputation and recognition the artist currently enjoys’ (Desmond,
2011, p112 - quotes Landi, 1998, p118). The idea of the Avant-Garde relies on
the myth of how artists are somehow more special, more creative and a greater
‘breed’ of the human race than most of us. It could easily be said that Fine Art
has become a trend or a fashion, and has provided a gateway for obnoxious
persons to self-proclaim themselves as ‘genius’s’ and use their fame and ego to
gain their fortune, which is backed up by how Desmond states the crucial factor
of art being ‘the level of reputation and recognition the artists currently
enjoys’. The actual sense of value (in this case monetary value, more so than
spiritual or emotional value) towards artwork has derived from the idea of Fine
Art being part of a very high culture society (following its routes in history by being a part of the
ruling-class’ lives as they were the only people who were able to afford to
produce or sell the art) and the supremacy that encircles the artwork produced
and sold, is extremely desirable by the lower classes, which contrasts to the
lower cultured society that seems to surround art practices such as Graphic
Design or Photography; where these practitioners are referred to as wage labourers
working for the masses, rather than creating something of individual
significance and so called importance. Artistic culture nowadays is still seen
as elitist and retains the same stereotypes as its past, and it seems that the
value of the most prized creations is down to the price tag, not the sentiment
or actual meaning of the art that originally created the significance.
‘Marxists believe an artwork’s value depends on its function in a social
setting. Art is a tool. Art is a shaper of political attitudes. The function of
art is social. Marxists believe a work of art is both an expression of and a
reaction against social conditions.’ (Desmond, 2011, pg. 96) It is true to say
that artwork functions sociality, as people who view pieces of art can relate
to one another and discuss what they think is the meaning behind the art.
However, this can be said for all art practices. There are a variety of famous
photographs taken that are “both an expression of and a reaction against social
conditions”, for example the photo of the Napalm Girl in Vietnam taken by Nick
Ut (see image 1). This photograph is a dramatic and socially questioning image
that, when viewed, will cause various debates and could possibly be “a shaper
of political attitudes”. The photo itself questions Vietnam’s society and
government and is that emotionally engaging, that Ut’s audience are almost
absorbed into the photograph, therefore they will be able to relate themselves
with how the girl is feeling. Photography that engages the audience’s deepest
and most heart-felt emotions is the utmost successful. This powerful form of taking
pictures causes just as much discussion and interest as so called ‘works of
art’ created by Fine Artists, and deserves fair and unbiased recognition. Photography
shouldn’t be thought of as less valuable than Fine Art, just because the image
does not have a mammoth monetary value associated with it.
‘Such fantasy prices are encountered in the art market, too, where they
are asked for objects of no artistic merit’ (Graw, 2009, pg. 30). Fine Art has
a monetary value. It’s not always worth the money that it’s being sold for, but
the size of the money being spent creates a sense of importance and
ingeniousness. ‘Art’s popularity has been purchased at the price of triviality’
(Stallabrass, 1999, pg. 2). The main focus of recent Fine Art is usually how
obscure an artist can make a concept, not how talented the artists are
themselves. The concept is the device that creates the high value, which comes
in company with the even higher price. The creative response is usually just
interpreted by the viewer and no one really understands it unless it is written
down or explained to him or her, therefore the debate around the art causes
more interest than the actual art itself. A good example of an artist who works
in this way would be the notorious Damien Hirst. Hirst is what some may call,
‘an ideas man’. The soul base of his fortune comes from the ‘out-there’
thoughts that spill out of his mind, but he doesn’t actually have any real
artistic talent himself. Once Hirst has thought up an idea, he hires friends or
general public to bring his ideas to life, and then leaves his name alongside
the creation, almost like a branding of the artwork. In reaction to one of
Hirsts’ recent formations ‘For The Love of God’ (see image 2), Robin Simon (the
editor of the British Art Journal) wrote ‘All of Hirsts’ works are stunts but
this is just a more expensive stunt. It’s vacuous nonsense’ (Simon, 2007, The
British Art Journal). It is obvious that many art critiques and spectators
despise Hirsts’ work, however we have pretty much been forced to endure it,
simply because of the high face value that has been stapled to the pieces when
they’re finished.
If a Graphic Designer, for example Jan Tschichold, was to create a
poster or a typeface by literally thinking up an idea and paying someone else
to do the work for him, he wouldn’t receive anywhere near as much credit as
Hirst receives for all of his pieces, and would, in contrast, probably be
questioned for plagiarism or whether he was the true designer everyone may have
thought him to be, as the work won’t show any actual skill in the design.
Hirst himself often speaks about his work negatively, ‘I showed Nick a
photo of it and he wanted it in the show. It’s all drips and splats. Terrible,
really. When I moved down to Devon, I stuck it outside behind a barn. Millicent
Wilner from Gagosian came down to visit and she was freaking out: “Why have you
put it there? In the rain! Jesus Christ, Damien!” It was like gold because it
was me, but, really, it’s shit’ (O’Hagan, 2012, The Guardian). It’s interesting
to find that Hirst knows his work is branded by his name, and only obtains the monetary
value because it was created by him ‘it was gold because it was me, but,
really, it’s shit’.
The radical shifts in culture that have occurred over the past 20 years
or so all over the world, have pushed society to indulge in such artwork that
we see being created by artists like Hirst, and Jeff Koons. ‘The unstoppable
rise of art as a commodity and the successful artist as a brand; the ascendancy
of a post-Thatcher generation of Young British Artists (YBAs) who set out,
unapologetically, to make shock-art that also made money; the attendant rise of
uber-dealers such as Jay Jopling in London and Larry Gagosian in New York; and
the birth of a new kind of gallery culture, in which the blockbuster show rules
and merchandising is a lucrative side-line’ (O’Hagan, 2012, The Guardian). All
of the factors that O’Hagan writes about, are sheer factors that have made ‘The
Art World’ what it is today: simply a greed ridden society accumulating space
for talentless ‘ideas men’ producing works of art literally to see if they can
shock the public or knock the competition off the scoreboard by attempting to
sell their artwork for the highest value of money humanly possible.
The
Avant-Garde movement is a clear example of a radical group of artists
rebelling, setting challenges, and experimenting with their artwork to prove
that they are the superiors. Society seems to enjoy placing Fine Art at the top
of cultural importance, because supposedly you can categorise all areas of
design under it. It can be said that a lot of fine artists go to art school, as
they believe that they are a ‘special breed’ of human and that no other art
practice is quite like it, or favoured as much. The term Avant-Garde, when
translated literally from French to English, means the advancing guard or the
Van Guard (elite French troops who drive the people forwards). Just the term
itself is significant to the way Fine Artists of this movement thought of
themselves as the top of the pack, or the elites. As Calinescu states, "to
be a member of the avant-garde is to be part of an elite--although this elite,
unlike the ruling classes or groups of the past, is committed to a totally
anti-elitist program, whose final utopian aim is the equal sharing by all
people of all the benefits of life" (Calinescu, 1977, pg.104) The Death of
Chatterton by Henry Wallace (see image 4) exemplifies the myth of how artists
are somehow more special, creative and greater than most of us and the notion
of the Avant-Garde relies on that myth. Similar to how rock stars act, Fine
Artists think that they are great god-like geniuses.
Graphic
Design is Industrial Capitalism – by the people, for the people – designed to
be popular and understandable. ‘Nothing is an artwork without an interpretation
that constitutes as such’ (Danto, 1981, pg.57) Relating to what Freeland says,
Fine Art doesn’t have to be understandable as people seem to enjoy the
challenge of making sense of it. However, there is no reason as to why society
can’t have the same debate that surrounds questionable art works, as you could
with pieces of Graphic Design. Works by David Carson (see image 3) could easily
be misunderstood as Carson intentionally chooses to produce designs that are
barely legible and hard to make sense of. Although mainstream Graphic Design is
usually made to be completely understandable and functional, not all Designers
choose to work this way. Some, like Fine Art artists,
enjoy creating a sense of confusion to surround their work to cause debates and
create chatter between the general public. ‘A crucial difference between an
artwork and a product capable of unlimited mass manufacture is that the artwork
promises a closer connection to its “master”, allowing the owner to imagine
that an intimate relationship exists between himself and the artist’ (Graw,
2009, pg. 26) Even though you can feel a connection between yourself and the
artist who created the work, it can be argued that Graphic Design, Photography,
Printmaking, Textiles, Ceramics, Craft and even Architecture can hold this same
feel to the work produced when the buyer or viewer looks at or engages with the
designs. Someone who manages to get hold of an original design piece created by
their favourite Graphic Designer, for example Milton Glaser, would experience
just as much of a connection to the design as someone who receives a painting
created by Van Gogh. Just because most Fine Art is produced only the once,
doesn’t mean that all other art practices produce each piece for ‘mass
manufacture’. In fact there are plenty of so called ‘one off’ pieces of Fine
Art that have been reproduced, due to tourism or the general public really
loving the image and wanting their own key ring or book made from said artwork.
‘Another factor contributing to the special status or art is its promise of
durability. Its value is not used up like that of a consumer product, and it
does not diminish over time’ (Graw, 2009, pg.26) Graw’s point here is extremely
flawed. There are plenty of photographs, buildings, garments and designs that
promise durability. A lot of designs can become out-dated, however that’s
because the fashion and trends are constantly changing, and something that may
have been well loved and fashionable yesterday, might be seen as out-dated the
next. This is what makes a lot of art practices other than Fine Art stand out,
as they are constantly updating and keeping in fashion and in date. This would
contribute to their own kind of durability – a lasting and constantly updating
form of durability.
If
it’s unclear as to why someone has produced their work the way they have, then
people can easily create a meaning for you, which has become a bit of a con
when it comes to Fine Art. Many Fine Artists create art that has no meaning and
no reason to be why it is, just to see how the general public will resolve it.
‘An Oak Tree’ (see image 5) is a conceptual work of art created by Michael
Craig-Martin, a fine example of how Fine Artists create something that is so
out-there that the viewer doesn’t understand it, so has to come up with their
own translation. The piece of art literally consists of an ordinary glass of
water placed on a small glass shelf in which the artist has claimed that the
glass of water has transformed into an oak tree. This outrageous and radical
way of questioning what the viewer actually knows about glasses of water and
oak trees draws the viewer in, and often this profound way of creating art is
what creates the art’s monetary value. As said by Marx, ‘the expression of a
price is “imaginary”. It is attached to the valueless thing as a way of
obscuring its actual lack of value’ (Graw, 2009, pg. 30). This quote by Marx
relates to the fact that we see most Fine Art as valueless nowadays, as current
art that has received fame, hasn’t earned it through the sheer skill needed to
produce said art form, but by the thought that has spilled from the so called
‘artist’s’ mind. However this ‘artist’ could have no skill, no artistic merit
or talent, but could have literally decided to put a glass of water on a shelf
on a wall and call it art, which would then sell for a really high price due to
an art critique or another artist saying that the work produced is creditable.
Some may feel that this kind of art doesn’t deserve the value and recognition
that it develops, and rather just gains its monetary value through lifestyle
choices and fashion magazines. This style of art is fashionable, hence the cost
that follows the outcome. Again it seems that if
you want to follow the latest trends, you have to pay outrageous prices.
‘The
work’s price is based on the assumption that it is priceless. And this is also
what makes the artwork a special kind of commodity: the fact that it’s market
value is justified purely by it’s
symbolic value, which in turn is an expression of the manner in which it is
loaded with idealistic concepts’ (Graw, 2009, pg. 29) In conclusion, Fine Art
is definitely still seen under elitist values, which allows a significant rise
of monetary value alongside them and has gained
a high culture glow surrounding it, simply because of the way the history of
art has evolved. If it weren’t for the radicalism of the Avant-Garde period,
most works of art would still be thought of as worth the value by the masses
rather than just being seen as valuable by those who like to indulge in high
culture trends and commodities. Since the artist would be using their own
skills and talents to create masterpieces that are worth selling, the artwork
would be seen applicable to honest value rather than basing the price and
values literally on the branded artist name that rests alongside the creation.
So it could easily be argued that Fine Art ought to be acknowledged with more
‘value’ than more popular forms of Visual Communication, due to the fact that without
the art that was produced in history, it could be said that society and general
culture wouldn’t be how it is today. However, the value of the art should be
down to the quality of art produced, not just the radical thought process and
idea that brought about the final artefact. Real Fine Art masterpieces deserve
their significance in ‘The Art World’ for more than just monetary values, yet the
public shouldn’t forget about the other art practices that have helped to fashion
and improve Fine Art along the way like advertisements, family portraits,
architecture or even typefaces. All forms of Visual Communication that fall
under the name ‘Art & Design’ deserve recognition, and maybe the fact that
Fine Art comes with these extraordinary and imaginary monetary values is just a
form of recognition that will only ever bestow to that particular practice. It’s
finally become hard to see the art itself, for the sheer fact that the dollar
signs completely consume it.
Bibliography
Calinescu.
M, 1977, ‘Five Faces of Modernity’
Danto,
A, 1981, ‘The Transfiguration of the Commonplace’
Desmond.
K.K, 2011, ‘Ideas About Art’
Graw.
I, 2009, ‘High Price: Art Between the Markey and Celebrity Culture’
J.
Stallabrass, 1999, ‘High Art Lite’
O’Hagan.
S, 2012, ‘Damien Hirst: I still believe art is more powerful than money’, The
Guardian
Simon.
R, 2007, ‘The British Art Journal’
