On this blog, we will explore several major aesthetic theories from realism to postmodernism and engage in a dialogue about the very nature of art. Key contemporary artists will be explored in depth as each theory is unpacked and examined.
Each response should be between 150-250 words in length. These are due on the date listed at the top of each entry,
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Is it possible to value art both culturally and monetarily, or are these values in conflict with one another? Due Monday Nov 19
Finding a balance between cultural significance and financial security is truly at the heart of all capitalist endeavors. This includes art, which is an attempt to showcase an artist’s expressions and social commentary, while also turning out a profit. Working artists who successfully make a living from their work approach this endeavor in a variety of ways. For Jeff Koons, financial success is based on large-scale production. Not only are his works large in size, but they also require the labor of many assistants. His studio operates like a factory with other artists laboring to finish his works. Koons describes this factory as providing a “sense of community.” However, I feel that this type of “art” is not a balanced example of culture and money. Rather this form of work is based on the drive for financial success. While his process is exact, employing assistants to do the labor creates a separation from the artist and his expressive intentions.
Local artists maintain the balance in a different way. While they may still make a living through their art, it is not as great a payout as that received by Koons. Lynn Whipple is a local Winter Park artist who sells her works at art festivals. While she does not receive a large profit like Koons, her mixed media projects are the product of her own hand. She describes this process as an attempt “to continue communicating in her own language.” Her works are personal and engaging but still earn her enough to survive. This is a more balanced and common example of the artist’s attempt to maintain financial success and expressive integrity.
Critics of the art world often paint a portrait of the starving artist; however, art continues to be a prosperous market. This proves a balance exists between art culturally and monetarily, and living artists continue to maintain this equilibrium.
If you guys have the opportunity here is a link to McRae studios. Their holiday open house is November 30 and December 1.
I completely agree with David, and believe he explained it so well that I’ll do my best not to sound like I’m repeating everything he just said. There are two strong and vocal groups, those who view art culturally (such as historians, anthropologists, etc…) and those who view art works monetarily (business men, brokers, etc…) These two continue to fight for dominance, and the headlines love hearing the over-the-top prices some art works can go for. When art work gets made primarily for financial productivity, the art work looses meaning and cultural significance. Like David points out, with Jeff Koons’ factory like productions, his art is not ‘a balanced example of culture and money.’
Local artists do maintain the balance more so. They create art because it means something to them; they want to share their experiences and opinions with others. Not many of them can get into a museum setting, so art fairs and galleries are extremely important to help spread the knowledge of the artist’s works and also allow for more possible patrons. These patrons, by buying the art work, allow the artist to continue doing what they love. I've witnessed this first hand in my own family as my grandfather relied on his art as a primary source of income for some time. When his patrons bought something it wasn't because his artwork was 'in fashion', but because his work spoke to them in one way or another.
I do believe that there are the higher priced artworks that do deserve their price, as long as they aren’t putting on a ridiculous price for the hell of it.
It is possible to value art both culturally and monetarily. Artists like Andy Warhol, Jeff Koons, and Takashi Murakami make art that appeal to the commodity aspect of art. I agree with David that there is a balance between cultural and monetary significance and not all art finds this balance. While Warhol, Koons, and Murakami make mass produced art to earn profit, they are also addressing pressing issues such as society’s obsession martial objects and capitalism. There is still meaning behind their work that gives it cultural significance. Art that tries to drive a high price without any real social commentary or personal message behind it, to me, is not art. Local artists, like Lynn Whipple, use their art to provide for themselves and family. However, they incorporate their individual experiences, culture commentary, and meanings in their works and sell them not only to make money but to share their ideas with others. Koons said that, "having value attached to [art] is just one way that a society can say they like the work, but there is a difference between importance and significance. I mean, publicity or a presence in the media gives it a sense of importance. But significance is different, it's more profound." Regardless of the price of a work, art should have this ‘significance’ in order to keep the balance between art culturally and monetarily.
As David and Nikki have discussed, a work's cultural significance and monetary value should go hand in hand. Artists are individuals who interpret the world around them to create tangible expressions of their inner minds. However, in order for artists to prosper, they have to interact with that said world. Artists utilize their personal intentions as a baseline in aiming for success, but a work without a viewer does nothing to aid the artist financially. An artist's works should possess some sense of cultural significance to attract members of the art community. As critics, dealers, and gallerists become increasingly aware of an artist, his or her works increase in both monetary and cultural value; the works become a part of the community. For example, Damien Hirst is a widely-known artist who can easily sell his works to collectors for enormous sums of money, as we saw in his work entitled "For the Love of God." Over the past 25 years, Hirst has worked toward where he is now. He set out with his own artistic intentions, picked up attention from the art world, and is now one of the most talked-about contemporary artists. So, just by being at the center of the art world, his works possess cultural significance because they are examples of what present-day artists are creating. Regardless of what his intentions for the works are, the viewers can interpret the meanings from their individual perspectives. All in all, an artist remarks on culturally significant topics while striving for success, which can potentially be measured through monetary value, and the cultural significance is then increased as viewers create and spread their own interpretations.
I agree with what everyone has posted so far, mainly that the balance between creating art as a means of expression and considering the financial aspects of art is difficult to find. I agree that local artists seem to have found a happy medium in creating works that are culturally constructive but that also produce a profit. However, I took a different view and looked at this question from the viewpoint of the viewer rather than the artist. I think that valuing art culturally and monetarily are pretty much mutually exclusive systems. Both systems have to take into account a myriad of factors but those factors differ depending on how one plans of viewing a work. To value a work of art on a cultural level, I feel like one considers the artist, style, context, content, material etc. What we have been doing in class, I believe, has been valuing art in a cultural fashion. We have been viewing a work in context and considering the ways in which this particular work adds to the greater dialogue about art or other pressing issues. However, when valuing a work monetarily, I think that an entirely different set of factors have to be considered. Factors like what is on trend at the moment, what this work will do in terms of increasing the overall value of a collection, and if the work shows the potential for profit later on. While I think that it is possible for art collectors to value a work on both of these levels, I do think that for the majority of the people in the art world, these valuing systems exist pretty much separate from one another. There may be some overlap between the two but I feel like art collectors would ultimately have to favor a work through either the cultural or monetary lens when making their decisions.
Is it possible to value art both culturally and monetarily? Absolutely. Is it common? Well, that depends on what "culture" you're talking about.
Most of the art that we consider "culturally rich" does not have a monetary value attached to it. Culturally rich art, in most Americans eyes, is created by a non-American in a lower socio-economic bracket, who has strong feelings about where they come from and who uses art as an outlet for their angst/creativity. In other words, their work is not commissioned and has no benefit to them other than expressing their soul. The irony is that in American culture, it is easy for "monetary art" and "cultural art" to coexist because we're capitalists, so the things that we advertise say a lot about what our culture values. Our culture is one of constant technological progression, perfection, overwhelming stimuli, and a "beat or get beaten" mentality, all of which can be seen in our commercials, fashion ads, sport campaigns, etc. In other countries, however, where capitalism isn't prevalent, it is more difficult for these two values to co-exist because money isn't the core value governing the country's culture.
I personally believe that it is possible to value art culturally and monetarily, but they do conflict with one another. Adam Davison said, “an artwork’s price reflects numerous nonfinancial intangibles.” There is a pleasure of owning a painting, but it is suggested that the more important function of this is to signal the owner’s wealth and prestige. I disagree. I think people who value art reflect that work on their life, and consider it a visual representation of their self. “You’re spending $120 million, in part, to show that you can blow $120 million on something that can’t possibly be worth that much in any market place.” I agree that there is no way to price a painting that high in a market place, but it requires much more abstract principles than that. You do not just “blow” millions of dollars on a painting for the fun of it. You are spending that money to invest in a prominent work that has influenced millions of people. If one did not care about the sentimental value of their work, they would spend $120 million on something else than just a canvas with some color. “China, India and other developing nations has entered the artist buying market with great enthusiasm.” These people have worked very hard for their money, and it seems ignorant to think that it is just a monetary value component; it is much more of a reflection of their self, to themself. It is personal. Art is not about numbers, like the stock market. Art is unclear and deep, which no one can put a price on. People who are in the art world can put a price on art in a constructive sense. “They know long before the rest of us which new artist is going to have a big show, who is going to be trashed in a review or whose piece was just sold privately for a small fortune.” In this sense, the price can have an educated guess. The issue is whether the price will last, as the art market changes and the interest evolves constantly. Culturally, art can most definitely be valued within our society. It all depends on what people are interested in and what they fundamentally value. -Peter
I agree with the idea that art can be valued both culturally and monetarily, especially in American society, because like Caty said, "it is easy for monetary art and cultural art to coexist because we're capitalists." In our society, it is expected of us to attempt to turn a profit off of any endeavor that we undertake. The same goes for art and artists. An artist can make art purely for cultural purposes, but unless that artist has another source of income, one must expect to sell some of their works in order to survive. Just because an artist, like Koons or Warhol, mass produces their work and run factories in order to do so, doesn't necessarily take away from their work's cultural value. However, I believe that some works and artists have more cultural value than monetary value and vice versa. The difficult part is finding the "balanace" between the two. If an artist can find this balance, then they are more likely to succeed in producing culturally valuable works as well as make a living off of them so that then can continue to make art. Like Caty stated, some of the most culturally valuable works aren't the ones that are selling for millions of dollars because they are being made by the lower socio-economic classes and they speak specifically to smaller cultures rather than the larger whole of American or global culture. In the end, I think if an artist stays true to themselves and makes art purely for cultural gain instead of profit, they will eventually be able to make a living off of selling their works. This would be the case in an ideal society however, in American society, the dollar ultimately corrupts.
Is it possible to value art both culturally and monetarily, or are these values in conflict with one another?
I can see both sides in valuing either cultural or monetary facets of art. Andy Warhol's artwork has substantial monetary value but also reflects cultural events/people relevant to his era/the world in which he lived. However, the consumer society was mirrored in the everyday images he portrayed in his work. Artists like himself and Koons send messages through their artwork (such as capitalism) and make huge profits by doing so. Local artists tend to be more concerned about the quality of their work and producing as much as they can on their OWN (without assistants) to make a living. As most of you said, there are people who view art for pleasure and people who look at it in monetary means. In my opinion putting a price on art instantly categorizes it and takes away a lot of its cultural value. I believe we talked in class one day about the Art Basel in Miami and how none of the prices are displayed on the pieces. I think this is an interesting idea because people are able to determine what artwork they connect with and how it relates to them, rather than looking at a Picasso, for example, and automatically knowing what is going to be on the price tag. For a lot of people, without history books or prior knowledge, walking by a Picasso would look like any other artwork to them. It is the cultural significance of his pieces that set the high monetary value. Plenty of other artists hold the same artistic capabilities of him or any other important artist (Da Vinci, Van Gogh, etc) or are even more talented, but it is the history and status symbol that sets it apart. For normal people who cannot afford million dollar artworks, I think they care more about what an artwork means to them. For the artist, if they care about their work and enjoy what they are doing- that's the most important thing and they will be successful. Unfortunately though, as Drew said, this is not always the case and large-scale artists usually end up making the most profit off of their work.
Finding a balance between cultural significance and financial security is truly at the heart of all capitalist endeavors. This includes art, which is an attempt to showcase an artist’s expressions and social commentary, while also turning out a profit. Working artists who successfully make a living from their work approach this endeavor in a variety of ways. For Jeff Koons, financial success is based on large-scale production. Not only are his works large in size, but they also require the labor of many assistants. His studio operates like a factory with other artists laboring to finish his works. Koons describes this factory as providing a “sense of community.” However, I feel that this type of “art” is not a balanced example of culture and money. Rather this form of work is based on the drive for financial success. While his process is exact, employing assistants to do the labor creates a separation from the artist and his expressive intentions.
ReplyDeleteLocal artists maintain the balance in a different way. While they may still make a living through their art, it is not as great a payout as that received by Koons. Lynn Whipple is a local Winter Park artist who sells her works at art festivals. While she does not receive a large profit like Koons, her mixed media projects are the product of her own hand. She describes this process as an attempt “to continue communicating in her own language.” Her works are personal and engaging but still earn her enough to survive. This is a more balanced and common example of the artist’s attempt to maintain financial success and expressive integrity.
Critics of the art world often paint a portrait of the starving artist; however, art continues to be a prosperous market. This proves a balance exists between art culturally and monetarily, and living artists continue to maintain this equilibrium.
If you guys have the opportunity here is a link to McRae studios. Their holiday open house is November 30 and December 1.
http://www.mcraeartstudios.com/
I completely agree with David, and believe he explained it so well that I’ll do my best not to sound like I’m repeating everything he just said. There are two strong and vocal groups, those who view art culturally (such as historians, anthropologists, etc…) and those who view art works monetarily (business men, brokers, etc…) These two continue to fight for dominance, and the headlines love hearing the over-the-top prices some art works can go for. When art work gets made primarily for financial productivity, the art work looses meaning and cultural significance. Like David points out, with Jeff Koons’ factory like productions, his art is not ‘a balanced example of culture and money.’
ReplyDeleteLocal artists do maintain the balance more so. They create art because it means something to them; they want to share their experiences and opinions with others. Not many of them can get into a museum setting, so art fairs and galleries are extremely important to help spread the knowledge of the artist’s works and also allow for more possible patrons. These patrons, by buying the art work, allow the artist to continue doing what they love. I've witnessed this first hand in my own family as my grandfather relied on his art as a primary source of income for some time. When his patrons bought something it wasn't because his artwork was 'in fashion', but because his work spoke to them in one way or another.
I do believe that there are the higher priced artworks that do deserve their price, as long as they aren’t putting on a ridiculous price for the hell of it.
It is possible to value art both culturally and monetarily. Artists like Andy Warhol, Jeff Koons, and Takashi Murakami make art that appeal to the commodity aspect of art. I agree with David that there is a balance between cultural and monetary significance and not all art finds this balance. While Warhol, Koons, and Murakami make mass produced art to earn profit, they are also addressing pressing issues such as society’s obsession martial objects and capitalism. There is still meaning behind their work that gives it cultural significance. Art that tries to drive a high price without any real social commentary or personal message behind it, to me, is not art. Local artists, like Lynn Whipple, use their art to provide for themselves and family. However, they incorporate their individual experiences, culture commentary, and meanings in their works and sell them not only to make money but to share their ideas with others. Koons said that, "having value attached to [art] is just one way that a society can say they like the work, but there is a difference between importance and significance. I mean, publicity or a presence in the media gives it a sense of importance. But significance is different, it's more profound." Regardless of the price of a work, art should have this ‘significance’ in order to keep the balance between art culturally and monetarily.
ReplyDeleteAs David and Nikki have discussed, a work's cultural significance and monetary value should go hand in hand. Artists are individuals who interpret the world around them to create tangible expressions of their inner minds. However, in order for artists to prosper, they have to interact with that said world. Artists utilize their personal intentions as a baseline in aiming for success, but a work without a viewer does nothing to aid the artist financially. An artist's works should possess some sense of cultural significance to attract members of the art community. As critics, dealers, and gallerists become increasingly aware of an artist, his or her works increase in both monetary and cultural value; the works become a part of the community. For example, Damien Hirst is a widely-known artist who can easily sell his works to collectors for enormous sums of money, as we saw in his work entitled "For the Love of God." Over the past 25 years, Hirst has worked toward where he is now. He set out with his own artistic intentions, picked up attention from the art world, and is now one of the most talked-about contemporary artists. So, just by being at the center of the art world, his works possess cultural significance because they are examples of what present-day artists are creating. Regardless of what his intentions for the works are, the viewers can interpret the meanings from their individual perspectives. All in all, an artist remarks on culturally significant topics while striving for success, which can potentially be measured through monetary value, and the cultural significance is then increased as viewers create and spread their own interpretations.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what everyone has posted so far, mainly that the balance between creating art as a means of expression and considering the financial aspects of art is difficult to find. I agree that local artists seem to have found a happy medium in creating works that are culturally constructive but that also produce a profit. However, I took a different view and looked at this question from the viewpoint of the viewer rather than the artist. I think that valuing art culturally and monetarily are pretty much mutually exclusive systems. Both systems have to take into account a myriad of factors but those factors differ depending on how one plans of viewing a work. To value a work of art on a cultural level, I feel like one considers the artist, style, context, content, material etc. What we have been doing in class, I believe, has been valuing art in a cultural fashion. We have been viewing a work in context and considering the ways in which this particular work adds to the greater dialogue about art or other pressing issues. However, when valuing a work monetarily, I think that an entirely different set of factors have to be considered. Factors like what is on trend at the moment, what this work will do in terms of increasing the overall value of a collection, and if the work shows the potential for profit later on. While I think that it is possible for art collectors to value a work on both of these levels, I do think that for the majority of the people in the art world, these valuing systems exist pretty much separate from one another. There may be some overlap between the two but I feel like art collectors would ultimately have to favor a work through either the cultural or monetary lens when making their decisions.
ReplyDeleteIs it possible to value art both culturally and monetarily? Absolutely. Is it common? Well, that depends on what "culture" you're talking about.
ReplyDeleteMost of the art that we consider "culturally rich" does not have a monetary value attached to it. Culturally rich art, in most Americans eyes, is created by a non-American in a lower socio-economic bracket, who has strong feelings about where they come from and who uses art as an outlet for their angst/creativity. In other words, their work is not commissioned and has no benefit to them other than expressing their soul. The irony is that in American culture, it is easy for "monetary art" and "cultural art" to coexist because we're capitalists, so the things that we advertise say a lot about what our culture values. Our culture is one of constant technological progression, perfection, overwhelming stimuli, and a "beat or get beaten" mentality, all of which can be seen in our commercials, fashion ads, sport campaigns, etc. In other countries, however, where capitalism isn't prevalent, it is more difficult for these two values to co-exist because money isn't the core value governing the country's culture.
I personally believe that it is possible to value art culturally and monetarily, but they do conflict with one another. Adam Davison said, “an artwork’s price reflects numerous nonfinancial intangibles.” There is a pleasure of owning a painting, but it is suggested that the more important function of this is to signal the owner’s wealth and prestige. I disagree. I think people who value art reflect that work on their life, and consider it a visual representation of their self. “You’re spending $120 million, in part, to show that you can blow $120 million on something that can’t possibly be worth that much in any market place.” I agree that there is no way to price a painting that high in a market place, but it requires much more abstract principles than that. You do not just “blow” millions of dollars on a painting for the fun of it. You are spending that money to invest in a prominent work that has influenced millions of people. If one did not care about the sentimental value of their work, they would spend $120 million on something else than just a canvas with some color. “China, India and other developing nations has entered the artist buying market with great enthusiasm.” These people have worked very hard for their money, and it seems ignorant to think that it is just a monetary value component; it is much more of a reflection of their self, to themself. It is personal. Art is not about numbers, like the stock market. Art is unclear and deep, which no one can put a price on. People who are in the art world can put a price on art in a constructive sense. “They know long before the rest of us which new artist is going to have a big show, who is going to be trashed in a review or whose piece was just sold privately for a small fortune.” In this sense, the price can have an educated guess. The issue is whether the price will last, as the art market changes and the interest evolves constantly. Culturally, art can most definitely be valued within our society. It all depends on what people are interested in and what they fundamentally value.
ReplyDelete-Peter
I agree with the idea that art can be valued both culturally and monetarily, especially in American society, because like Caty said, "it is easy for monetary art and cultural art to coexist because we're capitalists." In our society, it is expected of us to attempt to turn a profit off of any endeavor that we undertake. The same goes for art and artists. An artist can make art purely for cultural purposes, but unless that artist has another source of income, one must expect to sell some of their works in order to survive. Just because an artist, like Koons or Warhol, mass produces their work and run factories in order to do so, doesn't necessarily take away from their work's cultural value. However, I believe that some works and artists have more cultural value than monetary value and vice versa. The difficult part is finding the "balanace" between the two. If an artist can find this balance, then they are more likely to succeed in producing culturally valuable works as well as make a living off of them so that then can continue to make art. Like Caty stated, some of the most culturally valuable works aren't the ones that are selling for millions of dollars because they are being made by the lower socio-economic classes and they speak specifically to smaller cultures rather than the larger whole of American or global culture. In the end, I think if an artist stays true to themselves and makes art purely for cultural gain instead of profit, they will eventually be able to make a living off of selling their works. This would be the case in an ideal society however, in American society, the dollar ultimately corrupts.
ReplyDeleteIs it possible to value art both culturally and monetarily, or are these values in conflict with one another?
ReplyDeleteI can see both sides in valuing either cultural or monetary facets of art. Andy Warhol's artwork has substantial monetary value but also reflects cultural events/people relevant to his era/the world in which he lived. However, the consumer society was mirrored in the everyday images he portrayed in his work. Artists like himself and Koons send messages through their artwork (such as capitalism) and make huge profits by doing so. Local artists tend to be more concerned about the quality of their work and producing as much as they can on their OWN (without assistants) to make a living. As most of you said, there are people who view art for pleasure and people who look at it in monetary means. In my opinion putting a price on art instantly categorizes it and takes away a lot of its cultural value. I believe we talked in class one day about the Art Basel in Miami and how none of the prices are displayed on the pieces. I think this is an interesting idea because people are able to determine what artwork they connect with and how it relates to them, rather than looking at a Picasso, for example, and automatically knowing what is going to be on the price tag. For a lot of people, without history books or prior knowledge, walking by a Picasso would look like any other artwork to them. It is the cultural significance of his pieces that set the high monetary value. Plenty of other artists hold the same artistic capabilities of him or any other important artist (Da Vinci, Van Gogh, etc) or are even more talented, but it is the history and status symbol that sets it apart. For normal people who cannot afford million dollar artworks, I think they care more about what an artwork means to them. For the artist, if they care about their work and enjoy what they are doing- that's the most important thing and they will be successful. Unfortunately though, as Drew said, this is not always the case and large-scale artists usually end up making the most profit off of their work.