alt="Wordle: "What is value in relation to art?""
style="padding:4px;border:1px solid #ddd">
Monday, March 30, 2009
Responses to the question "What is value in relation to art?"
title="Wordle: "What is value in relation to art?"">
alt="Wordle: "What is value in relation to art?""
style="padding:4px;border:1px solid #ddd">
alt="Wordle: "What is value in relation to art?""
style="padding:4px;border:1px solid #ddd">
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Hilary Williams - Visual Artist
Hilary is one of four artists performing a response to the question, "What is Value in relation to Art"2.10pm - 3.10pm.
Video still taken from 1 Last Breath.
Artist's biography and to view 1 Last Breath at http://info@mart.ie
Photo: Courtesy of the artist
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Niamh Murphy - Visual Artist
Photo: Barry DoyleValue and Art will host a number of performers who will be responding to the question, What is Value in Relation to Art? Naimh Murphy performance 2.10pm -3.10pm.
Custodians of Culture?
I recently watched the talk given by David Hickey for the Frieze Foundation entitled "Custodians of Culture - Schoolyard Art: Playing Fair Without the Referee".
Photo and references sourced from: Frieze Foundation on-inline
http://www.friezefoundation.org/talks/detail/custodians_of_culture_dave_hickey/
I was drawn to comments Mr Hickey made about where value is established in art. He claims that up until the 1970s value was presumed through this course: The artist made the artwork and approached the gallery, the gallery then sold the work onto the community. In Mr Hickey's opinion if purchase reached critical mass, in other words it sold well, then it was presumed that the work tapped into or was recognised as having some aspect of public virtue. When, by community consensus, the work assumed this importance it was then that the work would find its way into the public institution. In Mr Hickey's words "Objects of delectation became icons of public significance".
As well as this view of a kind of bottom-up appraisal of art, Mr Hickey points out the role of critical appraisal in determining value. According to Mr Hickey a further investment was made by those whose job it is to "brokerage" art; the art dealer, the critic, the reviewers, the magazines and journals. According to Mr Hickey these people and institutions staked their reputation on being right about the artist, marking a kind of price point. A price point based on reputation; by those (in the business of art) who are willing to back the artist and willing to risk being wrong.
The point Mr Hickey is making is that the bottom-up process relied on the collective taste of the community, not the professional opinion of museum staff. He believes this is no longer the case and that the bond between the community and the museum has been severed in today's art climate through economies of ephemerality. Mr Hickey cites 'non-commercial' art as the cause. By 'non-commercial' Mr Hickey means 'non-object based' art. Although he specifically names installation art I think his definition is meant to include other forms of non-object based art.
Here firstly, are two examples of how value was determined in the art world, demand for the object and the investment of reputation. These two qualifiers suggesting the artwork has public virtue and is therefore of public significance. Secondly in Mr Hickey's opinion this process has been by-passed by current museum practice for reasons of cost-efficiency.
NB: All references attributed to Mr Hickey can be found on http://www.friezefoundation.org/talks/detail/custodians_of_culture_dave_hickey/
If as Mr Hickey suggests these rules of value no longer apply and this is due to the introduction of immateriality into the art world. In what way does 'non-object based' artforms such as performance art affect the understanding of Value in relation to Art?
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
The Capital of Culture
What we now consider and accept as art today is a direct function of “museology and the various forms of museography which came to be professionally organised since the early nineteenth century art history.”[1] Anything that has been accepted as art by museum culture and canonised has also been afforded the luxuries of historicism, “wherein the import, value, or meaning of an item is a direct function of its relative position in an unfolding diachronic array.”[2] In plain terms the art audience accepts anything as an example of art as long as museum culture has deemed it to be acceptable and these examples of art become almost infallible as they are supported by literature and the weight of historicism. Art is based on a system of epistemology in the way that one builds a theory based on a previous theory that may or may not be virtuous, but the fact that it was widely accepted and institutionalised makes it a good stepping stone for an artist or theorist hoping to find their own direction.
[1] Robert S. Nelson & Richard Shiff,
[2] Ibid,
Museums have the power to authenticate forms of “art” and justify them by giving them an evolutionary direction and weight, art movements and trends are only deemed so because they have a relation to previous works and are seen to be part of an evolution of art.
The function of the white cube is to reinforce the autonomy of the work, while at the same time to be devoid of all references to commerce. This space is then cut off from the outside world by means of architecture; in small galleries there may be a stairs and in larger galleries there will be a hall of some kind. The influence comes from nineteenth-century design of art museums, ‘’this passage serves to disconnect the world of art from everyday life.”[3] [1] Robert Hughes,
[2] Nicholas Bourriaurd,
[3] Olav Velthuis,
[4] Ibid, p.21
[5] Robert Hughes,
[6] Olav Velthuis,
[7] Ibid,
[8] John Burns,
[9] Olav Velthuis,
[10] Ibid,
[11] Whitney, Price of Everything . . . Perspectives on the Art Market.
[1] Ibid,
[2] Alexander Alberro,
[3] Rita Hatton & John Walker
[4] Alexander Alberro,
[5] Rita Hatton & John Walker,
[6] Robert S. Nelson & Richard Shiff, Op Cit., p.409
[7] Robert Hughes,
[8] Olav Velthuis,
[9] Nat Finkelstein,
[10] Neil de Marchi,
What we now consider and accept as art today is a direct function of “museology and the various forms of museography which came to be professionally organised since the early nineteenth century art history.”[1] Anything that has been accepted as art by museum culture and canonised has also been afforded the luxuries of historicism, “wherein the import, value, or meaning of an item is a direct function of its relative position in an unfolding diachronic array.”[2] In plain terms the art audience accepts anything as an example of art as long as museum culture has deemed it to be acceptable and these examples of art become almost infallible as they are supported by literature and the weight of historicism. Art is based on a system of epistemology in the way that one builds a theory based on a previous theory that may or may not be virtuous, but the fact that it was widely accepted and institutionalised makes it a good stepping stone for an artist or theorist hoping to find their own direction.
[1] Robert S. Nelson & Richard Shiff,
[2] Ibid,
Museums have the power to authenticate forms of “art” and justify them by giving them an evolutionary direction and weight, art movements and trends are only deemed so because they have a relation to previous works and are seen to be part of an evolution of art.
The function of the white cube is to reinforce the autonomy of the work, while at the same time to be devoid of all references to commerce. This space is then cut off from the outside world by means of architecture; in small galleries there may be a stairs and in larger galleries there will be a hall of some kind. The influence comes from nineteenth-century design of art museums, ‘’this passage serves to disconnect the world of art from everyday life.”[3] [1] Robert Hughes,
[2] Nicholas Bourriaurd,
[3] Olav Velthuis,
[4] Ibid, p.21
[5] Robert Hughes,
[6] Olav Velthuis,
[7] Ibid,
[8] John Burns,
[9] Olav Velthuis,
[10] Ibid,
[11] Whitney, Price of Everything . . . Perspectives on the Art Market.
[1] Ibid,
[2] Alexander Alberro,
[3] Rita Hatton & John Walker
[4] Alexander Alberro,
[5] Rita Hatton & John Walker,
[6] Robert S. Nelson & Richard Shiff, Op Cit., p.409
[7] Robert Hughes,
[8] Olav Velthuis,
[9] Nat Finkelstein,
[10] Neil de Marchi,
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
A commodity appears at first sight a very trivial thing and easily understood. Its analysis shows that it is, in reality, a very queer thing, abounding in metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties -- (Marx 1974, 76).
Since early Modernism, art in the western world has become inextricably linked to the market and capitalism, this is because it has become an institution based on the buying and selling of objects that transcend Marx’s labour theory of value.
When Duchamp placed his ready-mades inside the context of the gallery as one of his ‘’attempts to de-mystify art’’ not only did he create a new dialogue for conceptualism, but in effect he actually turned modern arts value system on its head. Duchamp had risen at one time functional but now redundant (non-commodity) objects to the level of marketable art objects (commodities). If an artist can change the value of an object by merely putting an idea on the object, this means that what was to be valued in art was the idea and not the object.
Abstract art was easy and quick to make which thus gave it the ability to meet market demands. What conceptualism did to effectively emphasize the genius of the artist over craft and labour.
Art was no longer valued by aesthetic beauty; rather it was valued by the concept contained in the work.
In this way the idea becomes inextricably linked to marketable value and the loss of the object has made it easier for the artists to fill galleries as the work is quicker and easier to make.
Roy Lichtenstein once claimed that he wanted to make a picture so ugly that nobody would hang it, but of course history has proven the object of art is not valued by a conventional means of visual aesthetics, rather the art object is valuable because we as a society agree to value it.
It is said that the dematerialisation of art during the sixties was an escape attempt from a capitalist institution that commoditised everything and exploited the world. Lippard references a statement she made in 1969 with the end note (Now that’s utopian); “the people who bought a work of art they can’t hang up or have in their garden are less interested in possession. They are patrons rather than collectors.’’ And indeed it was utopian.
Much of this non-object art sought to shock, but the fact is that this art never encouraged dialectical change it was merely a by-product of it.
"Hopes that the conceptual art would be able to avoid the general commercialization, the destructively ‘progressive’ approach of modernism were for the most part unfounded. . . . Clearly, whatever minor revolutions in communication have been achieved by the process of dematerializing the art object . . . , art and artist in a capitalist society remain luxuries."
If conceptual art was trying to be unsellable by making less craft orientated work and losing some of the authorship of their work, they have failed because in the end they have created a new standard for valuing work. Not only this, but because a lot of conceptual works are easy and quick to make they are extremely efficient at meeting market demands. As Lippard herself admitted ‘’the escape was temporary. Art was recaptured and sent back to its white cell.’’
Since early Modernism, art in the western world has become inextricably linked to the market and capitalism, this is because it has become an institution based on the buying and selling of objects that transcend Marx’s labour theory of value.
When Duchamp placed his ready-mades inside the context of the gallery as one of his ‘’attempts to de-mystify art’’ not only did he create a new dialogue for conceptualism, but in effect he actually turned modern arts value system on its head. Duchamp had risen at one time functional but now redundant (non-commodity) objects to the level of marketable art objects (commodities). If an artist can change the value of an object by merely putting an idea on the object, this means that what was to be valued in art was the idea and not the object.
Abstract art was easy and quick to make which thus gave it the ability to meet market demands. What conceptualism did to effectively emphasize the genius of the artist over craft and labour.
Art was no longer valued by aesthetic beauty; rather it was valued by the concept contained in the work.
In this way the idea becomes inextricably linked to marketable value and the loss of the object has made it easier for the artists to fill galleries as the work is quicker and easier to make.
Roy Lichtenstein once claimed that he wanted to make a picture so ugly that nobody would hang it, but of course history has proven the object of art is not valued by a conventional means of visual aesthetics, rather the art object is valuable because we as a society agree to value it.
It is said that the dematerialisation of art during the sixties was an escape attempt from a capitalist institution that commoditised everything and exploited the world. Lippard references a statement she made in 1969 with the end note (Now that’s utopian); “the people who bought a work of art they can’t hang up or have in their garden are less interested in possession. They are patrons rather than collectors.’’ And indeed it was utopian.
Much of this non-object art sought to shock, but the fact is that this art never encouraged dialectical change it was merely a by-product of it.
"Hopes that the conceptual art would be able to avoid the general commercialization, the destructively ‘progressive’ approach of modernism were for the most part unfounded. . . . Clearly, whatever minor revolutions in communication have been achieved by the process of dematerializing the art object . . . , art and artist in a capitalist society remain luxuries."
If conceptual art was trying to be unsellable by making less craft orientated work and losing some of the authorship of their work, they have failed because in the end they have created a new standard for valuing work. Not only this, but because a lot of conceptual works are easy and quick to make they are extremely efficient at meeting market demands. As Lippard herself admitted ‘’the escape was temporary. Art was recaptured and sent back to its white cell.’’
Today in the post-modern world we are no nearer to defining art than we were a hundred years ago. In fact art seems to be moving further into obscurity and the lines that define it have become even more blurred. For these reasons the Value & Art group have choosen to base our seminar around the most controversial of art practices - Body & Performance art.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
