The Commercialisation And Development Of Art - Essay Example

The Commercialisation And Development Of Art The role of the artist through the ages has always been enacted in a variety of social contexts. From the beginning of time artists have developed their very special skills and talents and have been supported and funded by others who earn their living in other ways. It is a specialised field, but embedded within a whole network of social, financial, religious and cultural factors. In the twenty first century it has become fashionable to talk about the commercialisation of art, as if this were something dreadful and negative that takes away from the purity of this specialized form of expression. The truth is, however, that art always was and always will be at the mercy of commercial factors and cultural changes. Artists have to eat, and so long as this is true, they have to consider how to obtain funding for their work, no matter what medium they work in, or which culture they live in. There always was a market, and artists always had to make sure that their work would find buyers in their own local context. The one big difference between twenty first century western civilisations and earlier ones, is that technology and globalization have changed the way that all human artefacts are produced and distributed. Change is now faster, markets both bigger and more complex, and artists have more opportunities than ever before, but also more competition. It is against this background that this paper considers the on-going commercialisation and development of art. In her study of how art and advertising overlap in the modern world, Michele Bogart mentions a number of questions about the status of the artist, which in her view, remain still unresolved at the end of the twentieth century. These unresolved questions include such absolutely fundamental issues as “the status of the artist, the nature of artistic work, the relationship between artist and public…” (Bogart, 1995, p. 3). These questions provide our initial starting point for analysis. After considering these three areas, this paper will then consider contemporary notions of the way that art (however that may be defined) relates to popular culture and to commerce, and this will lead finally to a consideration of recent trends in the development of art in the twenty first century. The scope of this study will be mainly on European and American art, since to look at other civilisations would introduce too many variables for consideration in this small space. Every age has its own collection of artists who reach the pinnacles of success both in artistic and in commercial terms. The status of truly world renowned artists has never been higher, as can be measured in the huge market prices that are achieved by works of living artists such as Damien Hirst, and more recently deceased artist like Picasso and Van Gogh. Some of the renaissance masterpieces by Michelangelo and da Vinci also command almost priceless valuations. These famous artists, however, represent only the tip of a huge iceberg, and by far the majority of working artists struggle to make a living from their art, often resorting to part time work in order to pay for their materials and keep body and soul together. It is one of the great ironies of the profession that most artists spend many years in abject poverty, only to be recognised and feted late in life, when they are too old to make much use of their fame and wealth. Defining what an artist actually is can be a difficult proposition. Perhaps we should take the words of one of the world’s greatest artists, Pablo Picasso, who said: What do you think an artist is? An imbecile who has only his eyes if he is a painter, or his ears if he is a musician? . . . On the contrary, he is at the same time a political being, constantly on the alert to the heart-rending, burning, or happy events in the world, molding himself in their likeness." (Picasso, 1955, p. 505). This definition places the artist firmly at the cutting edge of history, with a hotline to the burning issues of the day and finding ways to engage with them using his whole being. It suggests that status should be far from the artist’s mind, and that his duty is to refine his skills so that he can faithfully represent what is happening around him. Picasso also makes it clear that there is no one thing that qualifies as art. He mentions music as well as painting in this quotation, and he himself produced works in many different media including paintings, collages and sculpture. Art can be made with many different media and forms, and this allows artists the ability to adapt and change over history, adopting materials, techniques and styles which come in and out of use over time. Many of the classical works of art that are studied in art schools are handed down from periods when art was almost exclusively purchased by the elites of society like royalty, aristocracy, high clergy or other powerful figures. In these situations a system of patronage was in place, which meant that the artist, if he was lucky enough to find a rich patron, had to produce goods in the taste of the person who was paying the bills. The more expensive and elaborate the art, the more this model of funding applied. At lower levels in society, however, there was always a thriving market for book illustrators, especially before the age of printing, and for fashioners of small artworks for the home and for jewelry, or for church use. The boundary between craft and art was always fluid, and dependent on fashion almost as much as on quality of workmanship. With the arrival of the industrial revolution and an emerging middle class, art moved into the mainstream, and every household had to have its pictures, ornaments and artefacts to display both the wealth and the good taste of the owners. An important part of the democratisation of art that this period brought about is the role of reproductions. There is a lot of argument about the role that reproductions of original art play in modern society, but in fact there is no way round using reproductions if people want to be inspired by great art in their own homes. Some would argue that a poster, for example, cheapens the original, since it can never fully represent the texture, workmanship, often also the sheer size of the original. Others (Hughes, 2002, p. 95) would argue that disdain for reproductions is a form of snobbery, and that people are very well aware that their copies cannot match the quality of the original, but are forced by economic necessity to make do with what they can afford. In a past where travel was considerably more difficult and expensive than it is today, and when the international exhibition was a rarity, the reproductive print became the mainstay of scholars and critics, achieving practical priority over contact with originals. (Hughes, 2002, p. 102). One way to look at this issue is to accept that having his or her work reproduced and placed in all sorts of places, inappropriate thought they may seem to the artist, is the only way that fame is going to be achieved in the modern age. Books, adverts, films, television and nowadays also internet sites are going to be the places where many people first encounter art. But are these reproductions art? A classical definition of art as the direct output of an artist’s hands would say no, but in the modern world it may be that we have to redefine our notions of what art is, and look instead at how the public receive and react to art-like objects. One of the great things about modern installation art and non-representational or abstract art is that these new forms have pushed back the boundaries of what we can call art. The artistic eye and the skill of framing experience in many different media are now almost more important than the objects produced. A lot of the meaning in art is brought to the object by the artist and by the viewer. We can see that this also implies that a lot of the value attributed to a work of art is brought also by the viewer. Although in the middle ages expensive gold leaf and jewels on carved wood frames added to the monetary value of paintings, it would be true to say that in most cases modern art is constructed out of relatively inexpensive materials. Pigment can be bought ready-made, and artists no longer have to make their own tools, canvases, paints, etc. because our capitalist consumer society provides these items cheaply and almost universally. In modern times, then, the cultural value and personal meanings that a work of art brings contribute a large part of its value. It seems, then, that modern cultures are open to a very broad definition of who an artist is, what constitutes a work of art, and how art can develop in the future. There are still some hot debates, however, about how much compromise art can make to commercial and consumerist demands before it just becomes a commodity, something you can buy in a shop and throw away after use. This also is not a new phenomenon, as Marcia Pointon reminds us when she explains why we continue to buy art: “Works of art represent capital investment as well as visual pleasure of nostalgic record. They circulate in markets according to the laws of supply and demand… what we can be sure of is that the aesthetic quality of the work… will only ever be one part of the reason” (Pointon: 2002, p72). Many artists who work in media other than the traditional ones like oils, stone and wood are often charged with “commercialism” as if this in some way detracts from the aesthetic value of what they do. The French silk artist Jean Revel, for example, tends to be overlooked as an artist, because his work in the eighteenth century was based on weaving and design techniques, but his innovations certainly were part of the art scene of the times, helping to create the dominant aristocratic culture and aesthetic sensibility. Miller notes approvingly that “his talent lay in marrying fine art with lucrative business practice”. The famous British railway line posters of the early twentieth century also seemed to find an accommodation between art and business, producing some iconic images that certainly do have artistic value as well as commercial uses. Later, in the twentieth century, the pop art movement took this approach to the extreme, parodying the useful illustration-like art of advertising and turning it back into fine art. Some artists have reacted against the commercialisation and commodification of art by taking their work to the streets, and using urban art methods like graffiti to make their point. The famous Banksy pieces are created almost in defiance of commercial society, since the artist does not own the wall on which he paints, and seeks no commercial gain from his art. The irony of materialist society is, however, that even the radicals know how to make money out of art, and the graffiti is photographed and marketed almost the minute it appears in the urban environment. Gary Shove’s book gives a fascinating insight not only into the works themselves, but into the conflicting views of society that come together in those who appreciate urban art attacks, and those who condemn them: How long before graffiti disappears completely? Legions of guys just following all the graff artists around the globe chipping their shit off the walls and sticking it on ebay before the paint even dries? (Shove, 2008, p.38). Art, if it is good art, always has value. This value can always be translated into cash, if people want to do that, and this seems to be a constant that will be with us through all the ages. One of the major influences on the commercial dimension of art can be found in the museums who are supposed to showcase the work and provide a gateway for education and the dissemination of art. These bodies are often funded by a mix of government and commercial interests, and traditionally had a very conservative and elitist role “as an august repository of aesthetic accomplishment, artistic genius and, not least, national pride” ( Brown, Hirschmann and Maclaran, 2000, p.146). As credit crunches bite, however, museums too have to market themselves if they are to survive, and they increasingly seek to use commercial tactics such as sensationalist exhibitions, discounting and advertising campaigns to make their presence known. Nowadays some of the most crass examples of trashy commercialisation of art can be found in the museum shops themselves, desperate to make a profit from the expensive artwork that adorns their walls. Galleries, too, are a feature of the modern urban scene, and they prefer the froth and glamour of celebrity receptions to promote themselves. In all of this most artists, with very few very famous exceptions, have little option but go along with the hype. Art exists today in these largely white, middle class, socially acceptable and heterosexual urban scenes, promoted by this dominant tier of society, who also form the main buying public for “high” art. In contrast to this high-brow milieu there is a thriving “middle brow” market for photography and limited edition prints, which retains all the pretentiousness of high art but without the huge price tags. At the “low brow” end of the market there are card shops and chain stores, or even gallery chains, who sell kitsch and large volumes reproduction pieces by artists who for some reason are hugely popular. Jack Vettriano, widely regarded as one of the most popular artists in Britain, and widely condemned for his popularity with working class buyers, when asked if his work is for the many or the few, responded: I'm pleased to say that my work is accessible to the many. It is tiresome that being popular is equated with having little artistic merit. My work is not widely known because it appeals to some low common denominator. Reproduction has introduced it to a vast audience. (Vettriano, 2008, p.41) The art establishment looks down on this kind of commercial success, but it is difficult to work out how much this is due to knee jerk reactions of jealousy, or a real, thought out examination of the actual relationship that exists between contemporary artists and the public. Pointon remarks that aesthetic merit is “something which is not historically fixed” (2002, p. 72) and it is true that fashions change and what appears the pinnacle of excellence in one generation can be suddenly demoted to ridicule and disdain in the next. The future of art and artists is hard to predict in detail, but easy to guess in broad terms. Commercialisation will be an ever present necessity. Sensationalism of the artist and his or her work will always be a great seller of newspapers and magazines, even though we might be taken aback by headlines like “The trouble with Frida Kahlo: uncomfortable truths about this season’s hottest female artist” (Mencimer, 2002, p. 26). The artist will continue with the difficult role of trying to access, process and reflect the main issues and ideas that are current in his or her time and place, while fending off the worst excesses of over commercialisation and trying to make a living with the aspects that he or she can live with. It was always like this and no doubt it will continue to be so for as long as artists take up their tools and get to grips with life itself. Reference List. Bogart, Michele H.Artists, Advertising and the Borders of Art. London: University of Chicago Press, 1995. Brown, Stephen and Patterson, Anthony, (eds.). Imagining Marketing: Art, Aesthetics, and the Avant-Garde. London: Routledge, 2000. Brown, Stephen, Hirschman, Elizabeth C. and Maclaran, Pauline. “Presenting the past: on marketing’s reproduction orientation. In Brown, Stephen and Patterson, Anthony (eds.), Imagining Marketing: Art, Aesthetics, and the Avant-Garde. London: Routledge, 2000, pp. 145-192. Hughes, Anthony. “What would we do without it? A Few Thoughts about Reproduction in the History of Art” in Painter, Colin, (ed.) Contemporary Art in the Home. New York: Berg, 2002, pp. 93-114. Mencimer. Stephanie. “The Trouble With Frida Kahlo: Uncomfortable Truths about This Season’s Hottest Female Artist.” Washington Monthly 34/6 June (2002), p. 26ff. Miller, Lesley Ellis. “Jean Revel: Silk Designer, Fine Artist, or Entrepreneur?” Journal of Design History 8 (2) (1995), 79-96. Painter, Colin (ed). Contemporary Art and the Home. New York: Berg, 2002. Picasso, Pablo. “Four Conversations with Daniel-Henry Kahnweiler” in Wilhelm Boeck and Jaime Sabartes (eds), Picasso, New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1955. Pointon, Marcia. History of Art: A Student’s Handbook. London: Routledge, 2002. Shove, Gary. Untitled I: Street Art in The Counter Culture. Darlington: Pro-actif Communications, 2008. Tanner, Jeremy (ed.). The Sociology of Art. New York and London: Routledge, 2003. Vettriano, Jack. “Artists Tackle Ten Existential Questions”. New Statesman. 137, Issue 4886, March 3 (2008), p. 41. Read More