Skill in Art by Dave Beech - Article Example

Skill in Art--Skill and Art The Dave Beech writes in his article “Skill in Art” that skill is being devalued by society through several means. Once explaining the extent to which skill has ideological value, the author explains several reasons for this to take place. In as far as art is ideological, Beech states that “In fact, it would be impossible to imagine significant shift in culture without such a change in the criteria of technical competence” (290). Consider the way in which art used to be valued. In previous centuries, art was valued for the extent to which the individual artist was able to recreate what was seen. The camera claimed supreme ability to recreate reality, and accordingly art took different direction. Taking cues from Duchamp and Warhol, the artist Jeffrey Koons developed a style of art that was completely unreliant upon personal skill and instead relied upon reproduction and appropriation. Several reasons for the devaluing of skill in art include the rise of such artists as Koons who intentionally create art that is made without skill. Beech also states that contemporary art itself is involved in taking skills way from artists. While Beech does not view Koons in such a way of devaluing skills, I wish to argue to the contrary in part of my overall argument. Beyond Beech’s argument, I would also like to state that it is part the mass production of various artists in universities that is devaluing skill to an extent. In discussing an exhibit by Jeffrey Koons, the reviewer Lynne Cooke notes that Koons sculptures were “executed by highly skilled craftsmen in small factories in Italy working, under the supervision of the artist, to two dimensional images which Koons provided as models” (246). Notice that the reviewer states that the craftsmen were “highly skilled.” This is interesting to note, especially when considering that an artist can achieve fame without being able to create the artwork himself. The people who actually put the physical labor into creating the pieces were simply called craftsmen. In considering this, we can see how actual skill in art is held at no value. The people with the skill who were involved with the project were not artists. They simply handled the technical aspects of the creation of the pieces. Ideologically speaking, it is not necessary in any way for the artist to be skilled in any way in order to be successful. Perhaps it is because Koons is unskilled that he is has the success to the extent that he does. Koons is by far one of the most successful artists, monetarily speaking, in recent times. Beech does not himself view the example of Koons as being indicative the devaluing of skills. He views Koons as an example of artistic appropriation. Similar to Duchamp’s Fountain, Beech simply views Koons’ use of other skilled craftsmen as appropriating skill into his work. However, we must consider skill to be something entirely different from physical objects which are appropriated. I am not personally opposed to the idea of incorporating kitsch into high art. This is not what we are discussing here. We are discussing the extent to which skill has been devalued. In response to the idea that botched art is not art, the authors Genette and Goshgarian respond by saying that “for an object to be a work of art, it is necessary and sufficient for it to proceed from an aesthetic intention, however accessory that intention may be when measured against the object’s practical function” (219). Botched art and amateurish art can be seen as a reaction to the overproduction and oversupply of talented individuals. If everyone is able to produce skilled works, then artistic talent must differentiate itself by being able to produce art without the use of skill. The appropriation of skill is still not covered under this conception. Skill, just like artistic talent, is an intangible quality, and as such is also a matter of opinion. Even the use of amateurish art or botched art is different from appropriating skill. The use of appropriating skill is like appropriating talent. If a were to appropriate another person’s talent, the only hard evidence of talent is an actual completed work of art. As such, the only way to appropriate talent is to actually appropriate an entire work from another person, and this would obviously just lead to an accusation or plagiarism which would be merited. There would be no accusations of plagiarism in regards to having a skilled craftsman produce a work of art from an original design, but still we can see how skill isn’t so much appropriated as utilised in a way that turns skill into a commodity. Koons might be talented, though he is not skilled. It takes artistic talent to be able to recognize and arrange objects into art such as what Duchamp was doing. Because skill is a subjective quality, it cannot be appropriated in the same way as an object can be appropriated. For instance, a person might be able to appropriate an object into a piece, and that person might be judged on artistic merit how that object was appropriated, yet the object itself is not being judged for its own qualities or the skill that went into the production of the object. Furthermore, we can consider the appropriation of skill similar to the way in which an architect utilises skilled worked to complete a building. Consider the ways in which Koons is works in a similar fashion to architects. A collage or a piece of appropriated art is different from the work that Koons does because he has skilled workers finalising his ideas; skill is not necessary in appropriating an object. Skilled workers are necessary to the work of both an architect and Koons, and while some architects might be considered to be artistic to an extent, they are not generally considered to be artists. Once again we must go back to the idea that it is not my intention to state that there is no art in what Koons does, but the idea of the devaluing of skills must be considered. Koons is devaluing skills because he is treating them like a commodity. Painters who make a basic sketch and then turn this over to another painter to finalise the sketch into a painting would not take sole credit for the painting, yet Koons is considered to be the sole artist in his work. Of course, we must consider how this is indicative of a larger societal movement to devalue skills in art. Skill is simply a commodity in today’s world. There are several reasons for this to be the case. For instance, skills are now taught in various academies. Keep that in mind. Skills are taught; not artistic talent or creativity. These specifically cannot actually be taught in any actual way. Creativity and skill used to the domain of the successful artist in centuries past. There, of course, were far fewer people who could afford to either devote themselves to artistic endeavors. With more people able to afford to attempt the artistic life, there needed to be a way for these people to be able to make some sort of living through the skills that they learned. This also is the case for not only graphic artists but every form of artistic endeavors as well. Creative writing programs churn out prospective novelists and poets every year, far more than actually publish anything. We are not producing artists from these universities, but craftsmen with particular skill sets. By producing people with skill sets, these skills must then be used for something applicable, and as such the skills are being turned into something that people utilise not simply for artistic endeavors but as ways to make a living. Artists, of course, need to make a living, but there is a difference between an artist who utlises both artistic talent and skill to create works that happen to be able to financially support an artist and a craftsman who utilises skills in order to financially support themselves. Beech mentions ideas from the book Labor and Monopoly Capitalism, specifically that skill has come under the threat of industrialization. Braverman states that “the social division is enforced chaotically and anarchically by the market, while the workshop division of labor is imposed by planning and control” (73). Beech compares this tendency in the open market to the devaluing of artistic skills. Skills are industrialised to an extent under the university system , and it is no wonder that people consider the use of skill in the works of Koons as a simple matter of appropriation as opposed to anything else. The open market, which can be compared to the current art scene, is chaotic and anarchic with no way for a single person to determine what trends will be popular or which artists will achieve success or notoriety in any form. The workshop division can be compared to university setting under which students learn skill sets under planned and controlled methods. Skill can be found everywhere, and as such it no longer is special or unique. In mentioning the previous example of Koons being an artist without skill, it should also be mentioned that the number of creatively viable artists who complete various programs is not on the same level. Furthermore, let us consider that these schools obviously are not necessary to the existence of artists. There were artists before any sort of school existed to teach these sorts of skills. These schools can also serve to function to provide students who completed these programs with job opportunities to turn around and teach these same skill sets. In summation, there can hardly be an argument against the idea of the devaluing of skills in art. When skills are taught to identical sets of students who are formed not into artists but craftsmen who utilise skill sets as a commodity, this is an inevitable affect. However, to a certain extent we should not consider the devaluing of skills to be a necessarily bad thing. Artistry used to be exclusive to those who had both artistic vision and the artistic talent to realise that vision. With the devaluing of skills, it becomes such that more people are readily able to realise their artistic potential. This does not mean that everybody should make sketches and then have skilled craftsmen realise their designs. On the contrary, the concepts of botched art and amateurish art should be the focus of artists lacking the skill sets to personally realise their designs. This, of course, is the entire point of artists utilising methods such as appropriation; it is within the artistic vision that these artists must pursue their final goals, and the desire to incorporate skill into their work simply plays to the idea that artistry should remain within the hands of those with skill. While the devaluing of skill has obviously taken place, we must consider the extent to which this should be considered a good or bad thing. There are many artists that are canonised who wouldn’t be if skill was the only aspect of their work considered. In today’s contemporary art scene, we must consider the final place of skill. Works Cited Beech, Dave, “The Art of Skill.” Art Monthly, iss. 10.05, pp. 1-4. Braverman, Harry, Labor and Monopoly Capitalism: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century. Monthly Review Press, New York, 1998. Cooke, Lynne, “Jeff Koons, New York, Sonnabend Gallery.” The Burlington Magazine, vol. 131, no. 1032, pp. 246-247. Genette, Gérard, The Aesthetic Relation. Trans. G. M. Goshgarian Cornell University Press, 1999. Krauss, Rosalind, Passages in Modern Sculpture, MIT Press, 1993. Walker, John Albert, Art in the Age of Mass Media. Pluto Press, 2001 Read More