A few years ago, casino-made-billionaire Steve Wynn decided to sell one of his Picassos. While he was showing off the nearly 50 million dollar painting, his poor vision and depth perception led him to put an elbow through it. Oops. The joke was that because it was Wynn who caused the damage and is so valuable himself, it actually increased the value of the painting.
While this is in jest, it lends commentary to what I believe is an important notion to consider in today’s society.
Sure, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But when that beauty in art translates into a rigid monetary value and there is an overwhelming commercialist interest that outweighs the innate sublimity, I believe that beauty is invalidated.
Why do artists make art? I am not much of an artist myself, but I believe it is one of the select “industries” that exists outside of the business realm. Artists clearly (for the most part anyway) do not prioritize money over their work. They try to sell when they can, but from what I have observed, their masterpieces are more rewarding for them than the check received.
For the most part, I believe that capitalism trumps all. In rare instances with art or classical music, I think them to be something of an escape for the materialistic world in which we live. And sadly, this serenity is succumbing to the commercial market.
I know there are true art lovers and collectors, but so much of art is a sign of wealth and status. This is nothing new… in fact for hundreds of years governmental establishments across the globe have commissioned artists to construct pieces to make their kingdoms shinier than the next. We can thank that for the renaissance.
The difference is that other cultures have perceived art as a lifestyle and have treated it as such, keeping it a priority in their societies. It is a source of pride and the beauty is certainly not lost to commercial value in European countries. For us, the appreciation, the culture of the art is lost to the curiosity of financial worth. Art is an excuse for many to flaunt financial success. Plain and simple.
Wealthy elites tend to accommodate their homes with art not so that it can be appreciated by many, but so that their gross ability to finance some million dollar painting can be shown off to few.
Another point is the, for lack of a better word, “criticism” regarding copies and “fakes” in the art realm. There are companies that will hire painters to copy any piece of art for a few hundred bucks. And for the untrained eye, I don’t see how the copy would bring any less joy to an observer than the real thing. Except for that the real thing is that much more monetarily valuable.
I am not trying to downplay the incredibility of a masterpiece such as Picasso’s “Guernica” that could never be successfully copied to have the same effect. I respect the originality of design and experience, I only believe that too much weight is placed on having an original for the mere clout of having an original that is worth so very much. A value that has been calculated by the calls of the commercialist world and free market structure today.
How do we remedy this? I wish I had the solution. Increasing education of art appreciation is a step in the right direction, but the problem is larger than this. We have placed such a high value on simple money and displaying such that we need a return to authentic appreciation of beauty and intent. Like I said, I believe that the capitalist system is a necessary and good one, but it is should not be all encompassing.
I completely agree with your post. I didn't really grow up with an extensive art background. I was taught to appreciate art, but the art of past famous artists have not really registered in my mind. Renowned art pieces have always been something that I thought only rich people like. I associate having paintings in homes with people's economic status.
ReplyDeleteI think you give a bit too much credit to Europeans. They definitely also use art to demonstrate their social standing, just as is done in the United States.
ReplyDeleteYou express that there is no difference between an original and a copied piece of art, other than the monetary value associated with that art, but you forget the power of creativity and having been the first to create that work of art. What almost bugs me more is today's incessant desire to just imitate past masterpieces with very few ventures to create something fresh. We education in art not just so we can appreciate it, but also, so we can learn to make it again.
You make a lot of great points, but this speaks to the larger issue of what we as American consumers determine as value.
ReplyDeleteIn the early 2000s I was fortunate enough to be able to go to MLB spring training in Arizona with my father. I remember hearing a story of a fan finding a piece of Arizona Diamondbacks outfielder Luis Gonzalez' already chewed gum on the floor after batting practice, and proceeding to sell it for over $10,000 on eBay.
Now this might just be me, but purchasing a piece of gum chewed by a famous person for $10,000 is not my idea of a good buy. Props to the fan who sold it (along with Wynn for being able to sell his piece of damaged art for more money); both took advantage of the American capitalist system. But boy oh boy is the American consumer dumb.
It is a shame that American capitalism can cross over into the realm of art and stake a foothold that puts a price tag on each masterpiece, but unfortunately, artists have to make a living too. I think it's unfair to say that a person who creates art to make money, and is therefore more satisfied with the piece of art that brings in the highest bid rather than the one that the artist believes to be the most beautiful, is not a true artist. Rather, I think any person who makes a living off of being an artist, or a writer, actor, etc. is someone to be commended because that person truly chase their dreams instead of going to college to get a degree in something they may not be as passionate about.
ReplyDeleteAt the end of the day, everybody needs money to survive in America, so it is inevitable that capitalism found a way to govern the arts.
It is a great shame that the world of art has fallen prey to the consumer world in which we live. Yes, in a world so driven by how many dollars one can pocket in exchange for any and all material possessions, it was only a matter of time until the same processes were applied to the canvas. I do agree that for most artists, this is not what drives them to continue to create their work. Rather, it is a genuine love for their respective art that drives them each to continue pursuing their art. The unfortunate reality is, however, that at this point in time, most people pursue careers not because they will enjoy what they will be doing, but because it will make them money. It is my humble opinion that this is one of the most unfortunate things that money has done to the world.
ReplyDeleteGreat points, and I'd like to add to the interesting relationship between art and the money that comes along with it. Take, for example, a film director who wants to get his start. This director could have the best script, cast, set, etc. lined up for his film, but without money to pay for it all, it will never happen. This director is going to (likely) experience difficulty in raising money for the film.
ReplyDeleteAs another interesting example, take a competent director who has a terrible script, one or two famous actors, a tolerable set, etc. but can do the film extremely cheap so that it is guaranteed to make money in the box office. Think this director is going to have a tough time getting money?
And, finally, for a third example, take an exceptional and proven director like Spielberg or Scorsese. These guys don't even have to have a script or anything written to have studios and investors throwing them money to make a film.
Food for thought. You wrote mostly about art and classical music...the film industry is obviously much different from that, but I thought my ideas would make for an interesting comment.